6x7 vs 6x9

[Ariston]

I would like to hear from someone who owns and uses both of these formats. Do you use both regularly? Or is 6x9 just overkill?

 

[moto-uno]

Use them both and they're easy to make prints from ( really easy ) , however if you like to project the odd slide or two , then
they wouldn't be my first choice , scarce and scary expensive projectors ! Have a Busch Pressman D and 6x9 suddenly feels
light and portable . If it's of any concern , the 6x9 cameras were a Kodak Medalist 1 , Mockva 5 and The Fuji GL690 , the first
and last were definitely the best , but the Mockva was easier to have around . The Mamiya 7 is the other and it's everything great
that's been said about them , just kinda pricey . (Any specifics , just drop me a line) , Peter

 

[Hatchetman]

All things equal I prefer the 6x9 ratio for prints. 8 or 10 frames/roll doesn't make much difference to me. I struggle to finish a roll either way.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Well, it's 2 cm bigger!!!

Really depends on what you want in your final image. If you are going to crop to 6x7, why waste the film?

If the focal length you want is only available in one format camera, there you go- answered.

If you want the finest detail and plan to crop to 2:3 ratio, 6x7 isn't the best answer.

I guess what it all comes down to is: depends on many factors.

 

[villagephotog]

I have both 6x7 and 6x9 backs for my Mamiya Universal. I use the 6x7 back much more, but that doesn't surprise me: I've always felt that the 2x3 ratio is a little too rectangular for most of my shooting. Of course, I do sometimes run into situations where the more rectangular 6x9 format is better.

I guess my too-quick-and-dirty take is that if I shot a lot more landscapes/cityscapes etc., I'd use the 6x9 back more. For most other things -- general knockaround shooting and definitely for portraits -- I much prefer the 6x7 format.

 

[Ariston]

I sold a camera recently, so I going to spend the money made. I am considering either buying a 50mm lens for my RB, or picking up a GW/GL/G690 from Fuji for landscape work. I am unsure if the negative size difference is meaningful enough to really make a difference, but the aspect ratio is certainly more desirable. On the other hand, I saw someone on here posting about the 50mm lens, and that is a lens I would really like to try on my beloved RB67.

 

[Ariston]

Also, I should mention that I have never used a rangefinder, and that appeals to me as well.

 

[Alan9940]

I use both formats regularly and, for me, much of my choice depends on subject matter. When shooting landscapes--like in the desert where I live--where I appreciate a more "pano" aspect ratio I'll grab the 6x9. When shooting portraits and simply out "cruzin for snaps" I tend to lean toward 6x7. They're both very usable formats and, IMO, don't conflict with each other. If I had to choose just one, I'd probably go with 6x7 because it's more versatile.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Um, er, ah, GW690, 90/3.5 lens. GL 690, 50 mm, 65 mm, 100 mm, 180 mm lenses. G 690, similar.

Your real choice is between a 50 for y'r RB, which will extend what you can do; a fixed lens 2x3 camera with a normal lens, which will let you shoot a slightly longer negative than with y'r RB and its normal lens; or and interchangeable lens RF system with pricey lenses. If I were you, I'd go for the 50 for the RB rather than saddle myself with more, more-or-less, of the same or with another system to fall into. Another system camera is the top of a slippery slope ...

 

[narsuitus]

I would like to hear from someone who owns and uses both of these formats. Do you use both regularly? Or is 6x9 just overkill?

I use both.

I use 6x9 in my ...
Fuji rangefinder with 65mm wide angle lens.
Ansco Viking folder with 105mm normal lens.
Holga 120 wide angle pinhole.

I use 6x7 in my ...
Fuji rangefinder with 90mm normal lens.
Mamiya RB67 SLR with 50, 90, 140, 150, 180, and 250mm lenses.
Calumet 6x7 roll film back for my 4x5 inch view camera.
Zero image pinhole.

I prefer the 6x7 for general subjects.

I prefer the 6x9 for panoramic subjects.



Medium Format Kit by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[narsuitus]

I am considering either buying a 50mm lens for my RB, or picking up a GW/GL/G690 from Fuji for landscape work. I am unsure if the negative size difference is meaningful enough to really make a difference, but the aspect ratio is certainly more desirable. On the other hand, I saw someone on here posting about the 50mm lens, and that is a lens I would really like to try on my beloved RB67.

My Fuji 6x9cm rangefinder with a 65mm f/5.6 lens gives me an image with a 65 degree horizontal angle-of-view.

My Mamiya RB 6x7cm SLR with a 50mm f/4.5 lens gives me an image with a 69 degree horizontal angle-of-view.

The RB67 with 50mm lens is slightly wider and slightly faster than the 65mm lens on the rangefinder.

However, the rangefinder is lighter in weight and therefore easier to transport in the field.

If I had owned my RB67 with 50mm lens first, I would never have purchased the Fuji 6x9 with 65mm lens.

However, I owned the Fuji first and then decided to buy the RB67 because I needed telephoto lenses.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I use both. 6x7 gives you negs that easily enlarge to 4x5”, 8x10”, and 16x20”. 6x9 is the same proportion as 35mm, but way bigger. The difference in image quality between 6x7 and 6x9 is modest. Choose the one that corresponds to the way you see the world and like to print.

 

[MattKing]

What David said.
In my case, my RB67 creating 6x7 is considerably more capable than my Kodak Tourist using 620 to create 6x9, but I still tend to make my decision based on the aspect ratio which best suits my presentation needs and the subject.
If I have used 35mm and been happy with my photographs of a particular subject, I'm more likely to go back with a 6x9 camera to try to get similarly satisfying results in a bigger negative.
One thing I prefer though about 6x9 is that you can fit all 8 negatives from a roll on the same Printfile sheet. With the RB67, I often have to deal with that orphaned 10th negative - it seems so frustrating to have to use that extra Printfile sheet.

 

[moto-uno]

^ I agree with you on that extra negative , BUT , it'll be a happy day that I get all the negatives on a single roll exposed or composed well enough
to file away all of them , Peter

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I would like to hear from someone who owns and uses both of these formats. Do you use both regularly? Or is 6x9 just overkill?

6x9 is not overkill. 6x7 barely gives you more than 6x6 but 6x9 approaches the image quality f 4x5 whie still working in much smaller enlargers.

 

[mshchem]

I have an RZ and 3 Fuji rangefinders. I love them all. However I would recommend a GW690III OR II. If you want wider get the GSW it will cost more than the 90mm version. These cameras are beautiful in the simplicity. Any of these in good shape will only require a CLA now and then. I had one of the newest ones that I sent to have the rangefinder CLA'ed.

And yes you can contact print all 8 on a sheet of 8x10. I shoot a Crown Graphic 4x5 using a rangefinder handheld. The 6x9 is the closest thing to LF.

I never hesitate to take the rangefinder. They are tough, and relatively unobtrusive. With TMY2 you are in heaven.

 

[swchris]

I guess it also depends on whether you have the darkroom outfit for 6x9 (if you're enlarging yourself).
regards,
chris

 

[mrosenlof]

I have a 6x9 Fuji Rangefinder. I had a GWi690iii and managed to kill it, replaced with a good condition ii. Like it a lot. If I were shooting 6x7, I don't think moving to 6x9 would mean much to me. My idea of the "perfect" (hah!) medium format rectangle is 6x8. large neg, a nice 4:3 ratio and a roll negs fit 3x3 on easy to find negative pages.

 

[ic-racer]

Do you want a big 35mm camera or a small 4x5" camera?

 

[Ariston]

Everyone has been really helpful, with a few points I didn't think about, such as the negative storage pages being more conducive to 6x7. I went with a 50mm Sekor for my RB. I'll keep my eyes open for a killer deal on one of the Fujis, though. I have found that for the most part, if I don't like a camera, I can always sell it without losing a dime.

I would like to find an affordable way to shoot 120 film in panorama. The cost of roll film backs for 4x5 surprises me.

Do you want a big 35mm camera or a small 4x5" camera?

Does the Fuji meet both these requirements?

 

[MattKing]

Everyone has been really helpful, with a few points I didn't think about, such as the negative storage pages being more conducive to 6x7

Other way around - the 6x9 roll fits on one page, but the 6x7 roll does not.

 

[Ariston]

I must have weird sheets, then, because mine hold four lines of three negatives perfectly. They probably sell all kinds of sizes.

Or are you saying that it fits just one page? I thought someone was saying there is unused space in the pages because the negatives are too wide.

It’s too late in the evening.

 

[markbau]

It’s worth remembering that they are tons of 67 enlargers out there but not so many 69 or 4x5 enlargers which may be a consideration in making your decision.

 

[MattKing]

I must have weird sheets, then, because mine hold four lines of three negatives perfectly. They probably sell all kinds of sizes.

Or are you saying that it fits just one page? I thought someone was saying there is unused space in the pages because the negatives are too wide.

It’s too late in the evening.

Sounds like you are referring to the sheets - 120-4B - that will hold four lines of three 6 x 6 (not 6 x 7) negatives. If you try to put 6x7 negatives in them, they hang out the end.
Alternatively, you may be referring to the over-sized sheets - 120-4UB - which only fit in the over-sized binders - not the standard office size binders that take 8.5" x 11" pages.
Those over-sized sheets also don't contact print on to 8" x 10" photo paper.

 

[Oren Grad]

It’s worth remembering that they are tons of 67 enlargers out there but not so many 69 or 4x5 enlargers which may be a consideration in making your decision.

Apart from any other models, there are tons of Beseler 23C enlargers, versions I, II and III, out there.

EDIT: In fairness, I should qualify my statement with "in the United States". But that's where the OP is posting from.